Dr. Judy Wood on Coast to Coast AM

Selected From May, 2011 Interview
Transcript of first 17 minutes or so.
WhereDidTheTowersGo? Coast to Coast Am:

Quoted Text - G. Nori
Quote Free Text- Dr. Judy Wood

"Probably One of The Most Comprehensive Works I've Ever Read, Where Did the Towers Go? By Dr. Judy Wood, PhD."

"Dr. Judy Wood Is a former professor of Mechanical Engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization, and materials engineering science."

"She has applied her expertise to a Forensic Study, of more than forty thousand images, hundreds of video clips, and a large volume of Witness Testimony (under oath) pertaining to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex."

"How and when did you get involved in this research [Dr. Wood]?"

On 9/11 the story didn't make sense to me... And when I saw these buildings appear to unravel like a sweater - buildings don't do that. And I looked at my colleagues, we were in the back of the conference room looking on the big screen television.

I looked at them like - 'This is kinda a joke - like, ya know - 'war of the worlds' - the video presentation of it?' And they looked at me like I was nuts.

And I quickly learned that you can't talk about certain things. You are not allowed to question things out loud. But - Am I going crazy, or is the rest of the world? I'm objective, right? But how would you know?

So I started making some calculations about how long it would take the towers to go away, and what I would anticipate. And No, something didn't add up. But no one else seemed too bothered by it.

And I tried to put it aside, for awhile, and do my work. But then it got to the point where I couldn't set it aside any longer. Because, whose job is it to say: 'Hey, something here is not right!' Do you just go along with the herd or do you stop and speak out?

And I remember the day I said that to my mother, and she said: 'If you speak out, you won't have a job anymore.' And I said: 'If I don't, no one will.' And I still feel that to be the case.

"Well, you've got incredible expertise [Dr.] Judy. You've got the kind of background that engineers need, to talk about what you're going to be talking about with us here tonight."

"At this point, when you talk to people, [Dr.] Judy, what do they say?"

Well it matters where they're coming from, and how comfortable they are speaking out.

How I feel about these events, is: There is an Official Story, and there is Always Another Story. So, that when the 'Official' one no longer works, then there is the 'back up' one. Umm, Neither One is the Actual Story. There is Always Another Story, if you look at events over time.

But people will tend to go along with whoever is around them. So if you get someone by them self, and they feel it is ok to voice their opinion, and (to) say: 'Well, I don't think something's quite right.' Then, they're open to listening to what you have to say.

"Alright, so the story is: the planes hit the buildings, and they burned, and the steel beams burned, and weight of the buildings just toppled down on every floor and down it came. As an Engineer, give me your Thoughts on that."

It's one hundred and ten stories. Think of these floors pancaking down, slapping together: Boom, Boom, Boom! Now clap your hands together for each floor pancaking down. How Many Times can you clap you're hands together in Eight Seconds? Not: One Hundred and Ten times.

"No Way."

The 'Unraveling' of the building is incredibly fast. And the biggest thing that hit me was: Where Did It Go? Where did the Buildings Go? There's nothing much left. A few beams and columns here and there, not much above ground level.

"Was the building Pulverized?"

I call it Dustified. And I have this unique vocabulary, and I get a lot of grief for it. But, it is actually More Scientific than assigning a name of a Known Phenomenon to an Unknown Characteristic that you come across.

For example: Smoke. Smoke is what you get from Fires. If you don't Know What The Stuff Is in the air, Don't Call it Smoke. So I call it 'Fumes.' Just a Generic Term for 'Something' - Something Hazy, in the air.

Well for the buildings - This is a New Process we have not seen before. So, I call it 'Dustification' - The Building Turned to Dust.

"Now, what would turn something like that into dust?"

That's a Good Question.

"Let's rule out, A plane hitting the building. Should not turn the buildings into dust, correct?"

Correct.

"What about some kind of Controlled Demolition?"

That doesn't turn the building to powder either. They turned to powder in mid-air. You can see images of pieces of steel flying through the air, melting like ice cream, trailing dust...

"There was some residue of Thermite found. What is it? And What does that mean?"

Thermite melts things. It has a tremendous amount of heat for a short period of time. The buildings didn't melt. They didn't burn up. They didn't crash down. They turned to powder in midair. Thermite can't do that.

"Are you saying that the planes that hit the towers, might have been just a diversion? Just something for people to see?"

Something else Happened to the building(s). Planes cannot cause buildings to turn into: Powder in midair. And neither can bombs and neither can... You can rule out a whole list of things.

Even if you severed all the columns in the building like you do in Controlled Demolition, and slammed the building down to the ground -

"You're still gonna have the parts, the pieces right?"

Exactly. And also its Gonna Make A BOOM when it hits the ground! Its gonna Make A THUD....

"A Huge Thud."

But there was Not a Significant Seismic Signal that would be consistent with that size (of a) Building Hitting the Ground! That's another aspect of it.

"Why is it important to consider the Physical Evidence and the Science of 9/11?"

Without (Science) you just have Guess Work. You just have Speculation. For Example: Building Seven. It 'Looked like a Controlled Demolition.' Well, that doesn't mean it was. It's like Physical Evidence in a murder investigation. You can't say: 'Well, I thought that this person shot this person cause that's what it looked like they did.' Well, there was no gun? Oh. There's no bullet holes? Oh.

When you prove something in court, I never really appreciated why they had to make a connection with every single detail. Because otherwise you're just trying them on assumption. If you can see there are no bullet holes in the body, how can you say this guy was shot to death with a gun? And so, with the building 'collapsing' - If it makes No Seismic Signal, how can it have collapsed?

"That's a good point."

"This is a very packed, extremely concise research book. I have never seen something so detailed In All My Life. This Book Alone Should Have Been Delivered to the 9/11 Commission."

8/5/11: Edited: spelling, punctuation.